[la aurora]

Originally Posted by haku

The fact that the Red Army is not celebrated as an heroic force in the West is because the Red Army behaved as badly as the Nazi Army during and after the war (i posted in another thread this article about how the Red Army systematically raped millions of women and girls in Eastern Europe).

The war has an ugly face. Hatered, sorrow, revenge, hunger, fear, tiredness - all twisted by propaganda. Those people had their own excuses to commit crimes no excuse can justify. But it was happening in all armies, including Allies. Because the war is like that. And there were other stories with great sacrifices made, unbelievable acts of kindness and love to humanity. It's also true for all armies including German one. Just because western media is more interested in writing about one kind of aspects of the soviet army doesn't mean others never existed. I have no reasons not to believe the article you linked here. I just hope you realize that your view on story is pretty much one-sided due to having only western sources of information.

Originally Posted by haku

The Allied Armies on the western front defeated the Nazis and restored democracy and freedom everywhere they went, they did not abuse or oppress the local populations, and they gave back control to local democratic governments after a few months or a few years at most. The Red Army on the Eastern front defeated the Nazis as well but the similarity ends there, the Red Army abused and oppressed local populations, it installed puppet dictatorial regimes and continued to occupy Eastern Europe for 50 years, it crushed any attempts to restore freedom (Prague, Budapest) and democrats were persecuted.

People in charge often make their decisions with reasoning that's quite far from human one. All governments had their interests and limitations. Everyone took what he wanted and what he was allowed to take. Authorities often have no right to be human when it comes to pushing the interests of their country. Idealizing someone in this war is just wrong. Yes USSR did use the opportunity to gain control over Eastern Europe. Because they could and no one said 'no' including USA that had nuclear monopoly back then. I'm personally against such kinds of actions but I'm also against one-sided view on the history.
Stalin's regime is something russians suffered from just as much as those people in Eastern Europe. It was unhuman in many ways. But people that fighted against Hitler and believed they are doing a good thing were human and importance of soviet army in that war shouldn't be understimated. History should be full and not twisted.

Originally Posted by haku

Understandably this has left a lasting resentment in Eastern Europe, sure the Red Army defeated the Nazis, but what it did after that was just as bad as Nazis.

They don't selebrate the Victory Day anymore. At least it's not as important as it was in USSR times. They decide to remove the monument for the soviet soldiers that died there because it reminds them of soviet regime and nationalists use it as a place for their meetings. But at the same exact time here in year 2007 they officially allow the celebration of the Day of Waffen SS Legioners. Now that doesn't bring up any painful memories and they politely ask nationalistic parties that plan demonstrations for the day to 'please behave and express their opinion (they have democratic rights for) in a civilized way'.
I've recently had my ways crossed with ways of some young citizens of Poland. I don't remember what I said exactly but it was something innocent like us having a lot in common in our languages and cultures. The reaction was them furiously demanding for me to never never never use names Poland and Russia in one sentance. And it happened more than once in last year. Different people, all pretty young and not exactly stupid but full of hate. I wonder what they write in books nowadays.
And how about forbidding russian language in latvian schools? And have you heard what young Ukrainians feel towards Russia now with all those 'revolutions'?

There's something really fishy going on and I find it quite scary. Some countries are running full-speed into direction of democracy. But they use soviet-like propaganda to achieve the result. They twist history, deny the culture, raise up hate. It's not my idea of democracy and seeing this being praised by western media doesn't make this media any trustworthy in my eyes.

Originally Posted by haku

Absolutely, and that's why i am opposed to the project. If the missile shield was a NATO project, i would support it, but not as a unilateral US project. That being said, the missile shield in Europe is no threat to Russia, the shield would only harbor a dozen interceptors (which are conventional weapons, not nuclear) while Russia has thousands of nuclear missiles, you don't stop thousands of missiles with a dozen interceptors.

The EU is simply creating an area of peace, democracy, and wealth for European people, and NATO is now mostly a US-EU military alliance, neither organization is meant as a threat to Russia (NATO no longer specifically targets Russia as an enemy, this doctrine was abondoned after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact).

Europe used to be divided between Western and Eastern Europe, this was an unnatural division and it was only normal for the EU (and NATO) to expand to the East up to the border of the former USSR. I do understand that it's difficult for Russia to accept the loss of its former satellite countries and that's why i do not support any further Eastern expansion of the EU (and NATO) to countries which were formerly part of the USSR (with the exception of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania because their annexation by the USSR was never recognized by the West). I think this is an acceptable compromise for the EU and Russia.

It's not about loosing satellites, it's not about believing that the war is about to start, it's not about being paranoid. It's us, civil citizens to 'like' or 'dislike', 'be afraid' or not. Military guys have no right to think this way. They must make sure that if something happens, the country won't find itself weak and helpless. It's their job. They can't rely on good will of current governments of other countries. This all can change in no time.

USA being the big military power they are, plan to put their bases close to our borders without asking for anyone's permission (not for the first time). Things add up, USA expands their military force. Those bases of course are not a big threat on their own but they are a part of a big military system and in case war happens, they will give USA just another advantage. Russian military guys can't pretend it's cool because they can't afford being not prepared for such situations even if they don't expect the war anytime soon.

Plus the more powerful strategically the country is, the louder its voice is on political and economical field, the easier it is to push its interests forward in many discussions that aren't military related, the more independent it is. We don't want to see the infamous World Arbitor to 'help' us in solving our inside problems one day. Of course with these bases or without, we still have the magic red button, multi-million population and a lot of military devices. But it's a step in direction that goes against our interests. That's why we do mind.

Western Europe wasn't behaving agressively for quite a while now. I guess if USA was out of NATO, it would be much easier for us to get along. I don't really notice much paranoia when it comes to European countries. But your military systems can be used by USA and this country loves getting its nose in everyone's business lately without caring what the rest of the world thinks. You don't appear too peaceful and harmless when you are together.